Precision Gestational Diabetes Treatment: Systematic review and Meta-analyses
=============================================================================

* Jamie L Benham
* Véronique Gingras
* Niamh-Maire McLennan
* Jasper Most
* Jennifer M Yamamoto
* Catherine E Aiken
* Susan E Ozanne
* RM Reynolds

## ABSTRACT

We hypothesized that a precision medicine approach could be a tool for risk-stratification of women to streamline successful GDM management. With the relatively short timeframe available to treat GDM, commencing effective therapy earlier, with more rapid normalization of hyperglycaemia, could have benefits for both mother and fetus. We conducted two systematic reviews, to identify precision markers that may predict effective lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. There were a paucity of studies examining precision lifestyle-based interventions for GDM highlighting the pressing need for further research in this area. We found a number of precision markers identified from routine clinical measures that may enable earlier identification of those requiring escalation of pharmacological therapy. Whether there are other sensitive markers that could be identified using more complex individual-level data, such as ‘omics’, and if these can be implemented in clinical practice remains unknown. These will be important to consider in future studies.

## INTRODUCTION

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is the most common pregnancy complication, occurring in 3% to 25% of pregnancies globally1. GDM is associated with significant short- and long-term risks to both mothers and babies, including adverse perinatal outcomes, future obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease1-3. The landmark Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) demonstrated that effective treatment of GDM reduces serious perinatal morbidity4.

Current treatment guidelines for management of GDM assume homogeneous treatment requirements and responses, despite the known heterogeneity of GDM aetiology5-8. Standard care includes diet and lifestyle advice at a multi-disciplinary clinic, home blood glucose monitoring at least four times per day, clinic reviews every two to four weeks, and then progression to pharmacological treatment with metformin, glyburide and/or insulin if glucose targets are not met. Around a third of women cannot maintain euglycaemia with lifestyle measures alone and require treatment escalation to a pharmacological agent3. Yet current treatment pathways often take 4-8 weeks to achieve glucose targets. This delay resulting in continued exposure to hyperglycaemia poses a significant risk of accelerated fetal growth9,10. Previous research has suggested that maternal characteristics including body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2, family history of type 2 diabetes, prior history of GDM and higher glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) increase the likelihood of need for insulin treatment in GDM11, indicating the potential for risk-stratification of women to streamline successful GDM management. There is emerging evidence that precision biomarkers predict treatment response in type 2 diabetes, which has similar heterogeneity to GDM12,13 and thus gives rationale to investigate whether a similar precision approach could be successful in optimizing outcomes in GDM.

To address this knowledge gap, we conducted two systematic reviews of the available evidence for precision markers of GDM treatment. We aimed to determine (i) which precision diet and lifestyle interventions delivered in addition to standard of care enable achievement of glucose targets with lifestyle measures alone, (ii) which patient-level characteristics or factors predict whether glucose targets can be achieved in women treated with diet and lifestyle alone, and in women receiving oral agents for treatment of GDM.

The Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PMDI) was established in 2018 by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). The ADA/EASD PMDI includes global thought leaders in precision diabetes medicine who are working to address the burgeoning need for better diabetes prevention and care through precision medicine14. This systematic review is written on behalf of the ADA/EASD PMDI as part of a comprehensive evidence evaluation in support of the 2nd International Consensus Report on Precision Diabetes Medicine15.

## METHODS

The systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed as outlined *a priori* in the registered protocols (PROSPERO registration IDs CRD42022299288 and CRD42022299402). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines16 were followed. Ethical approval was not required as these were secondary studies using published data.

### Literature Searches, Search Strategies and Eligibility Criteria

Search strategies for both reviews were developed based on relevant keywords in partnership with scientific librarians (see Supplementary Text S1 for full search strategies). We searched two databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) for studies published from inception until January 1st, 2022. We also scanned the references of included manuscripts for inclusion as well as relevant reviews and meta-analyses published within the past two years for additional citations.

For both systematic reviews we included studies (randomized or non-randomized trials, and observational studies) published in English and including women ≥16 years old with diagnosed GDM, as defined by the study authors. For the first systematic review (precision diet and lifestyle interventions), we included studies with any behavioural intervention (e.g., exercise, diet, motivational interviewing) over and above standard care compared to a control group receiving standard care only. For the second systematic review (precision predictors of need for pharmacological interventions to achieve glucose targets), we included studies using pharmacological therapy to treat GDM (e.g., insulin, metformin, sulphonylurea) compared to a control group receiving standard care with diet and lifestyle measures, or taking oral agents before progression to insulin. For both reviews, we included any relevant reported outcomes; maternal (e.g., treatment adherence, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational weight gain, mode of birth), neonatal (e.g., birthweight, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, preterm birth, neonatal hypoglycaemia, neonatal death), cost efficiency or acceptability. We excluded studies with a total sample size <50 participants to ensure sufficient data to interpret the effect of precision markers. We also excluded studies published before or during 2004, in order to consider studies with standard care similar to ACHOIS4.

### Study selection and data extraction

The results of our two searches were imported separately into Covidence software (Veritas Health Innovation, Australia, available at [www.covidence.org](http://www.covidence.org)) and duplicates were removed. Two reviewers independently reviewed identified studies. First, they screened titles and abstracts of all references identified from the initial search. In a second step, the full-text articles of potentially relevant publications were scrutinized in detail and inclusion criteria were applied to select eligible articles. Reason for exclusion at the full text review stage was documented. Disagreement between reviewers was resolved through consensus by discussion with the group of authors.

Two reviewers independently extracted relevant information from each eligible study, using a pre-specified standardized extraction form. Any disagreement between reviewers was resolved as outlined above.

Data extracted included first author name, year of publication, country, study design, type and details of the intervention when applicable, number of cases/controls or cohort groups, total number of participants and diagnostic criteria used for GDM. Extracted data elements also included outcomes measures, size of the association (Odds Ratio (OR), Relative Risk (RR) or Hazard Ratio (HR)) with corresponding 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and factors adjusted for, confounding factors taken into consideration and methods used to control covariates. We prioritized adjusted values where both raw and adjusted data were available. Details of precision markers (mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables or N (%) for categorical variables) including BMI (pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy), ethnicity, age, smoking status, comorbidities, parity, glycaemic variables (e.g., oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) diagnostic values, HbA1c), timing of GDM diagnosis, history of diabetes or of GDM, and season were also extracted.

### Quality assessment (risk of bias and GRADE assessments)

We first assessed the quality and risk of bias of each individual study using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools17. A Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was then used to review the total evidence for each precision marker, and the quality of the included studies to assign a GRADE certainty to this body of evidence (high, moderate, low and/or very low)18. Quality assessment was performed in duplicate and conflicts were resolved through consensus.

### Statistical analysis

Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models for each precision marker available. The pooled effect size (mean difference for continuous outcomes and ORs for categorical outcomes) with the corresponding 95% CI were computed. The heterogeneity of the studies was quantified using I2 statistics, where I2 >50% represents moderate and I2 >75% represents substantial heterogeneity across studies. Publication bias was assessed with visual assessment of funnel plots. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager software [RevMan, Version 5.4.1, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark].

## RESULTS

### Study selection and study characteristics

PRISMA flow charts (Figures 1A and 1B) summarize both searches and study selection processes.

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F1/graphic-1.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F1/graphic-1)

![](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F1/graphic-2.medium.gif)

[](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F1/graphic-2)

Figure 1 
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagrams for the two systematics reviews: **A)** behavioural (diet and lifestyle) interventions and **B)** pharmacological interventions.

For the first systematic review (precision diet and lifestyle interventions), we identified 2 eligible studies (n=2,354 participants), which were randomized trials from USA and Singapore (Table 1A)19,20.

View this table:
[Table 1A](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/T1)

Table 1A Summary of included studies in the two systematic reviews
Precision behavioural (diet and lifestyle) interventions

For the second systematic review (precision predictors of need for pharmacological interventions to achieve target glucose levels), we identified 48 eligible studies (n=25,724 participants) (Table 1B)21-68.

View this table:
[Table 1B](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/T2)

Table 1B Summary of included studies in the two systematic reviews
Precision predictors of need for pharmacological interventions to achieve target glucose levels

There were 34 studies (n=23,831 participants) where standard care with diet and lifestyle advice was not adequate to achieve target glucose levels. Of these, 29 studies (n=20,486) reported progression to insulin21-49 and 5 (n=3,345) reported progression to any medication (metformin, glyburide and/or insulin)50-54.

There were 12 studies (n=1,669 participants) where treatment with oral agents was not adequate to achieve target glucose levels, and escalation to insulin was required. Initial treatment was with glyburide in 6 of these studies (n=527)55-60 and metformin in the other 6 studies (n=1142)61-66.

A further 2 eligible studies reported maternal genetic predictors of need for supplementary insulin after glyburide (n=117 participants) 67 and maternal lipidome responses to metformin and insulin (n=217 participants)68.

The majority of included studies were observational in design. Most studies reported outcomes of singleton pregnancies. The studies were from a range of geographical locations: Europe (Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden), Switzerland, Middle East (Israel, Qatar, United Arab Emirates), Australasia (Australia, New Zealand), North America/Latin America (Canada, USA and Brazil) and Asia (China, Malaysia, Japan). There were a range of approaches to GDM screening, choice of diagnostic test and diagnostic glucose thresholds.

### Quality assessment

Study quality assessment is presented as an overall risk of bias for the studies included in the meta-analyses in Figure 2.1 and as a heat map for quality assessment for each included study in Figure 2.2. Most of the studies were rated as low risk of bias, as they adequately described how a diagnosis of GDM was assigned, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reported the protocol for initiation of pharmacological therapy. Not all studies reported whether women received diet and lifestyle advice as standard care. Few studies reported whether the precision marker was measured in a valid and reliable way. Using the GRADE approach, the majority of precision markers were classified as having a low certainty of evidence with some classified as very low certainty (Tables 2 and 3). No publication bias (as ascertained by funnel plot analyses) was detected.

![Figure 2.1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F2)

Figure 2.1 
Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all studies included in the meta-analyses.

![Figure 2.2](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.2](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/F3)

Figure 2.2 
Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each study included in the meta-analyses.

### Synthesis of results

#### Precision diet and lifestyle interventions in GDM

Two studies examining different behavioural interventions were included in the first systematic review, so we present a narrative synthesis of the findings. Neither study examined whether a precision lifestyle intervention enabled achievement of glucose targets during pregnancy.

In one study19, the intervention was distribution of a tailored letter detailing gestational weight gain (GWG) recommendations (as defined by the Institute of Medicine). Receipt of this tailored letter increased the likelihood of meeting the end-of-pregnancy weight goal among women with normal pre-pregnancy BMI, but not among women with overweight or obese pre-pregnancy BMI. This study identified normal pre-pregnancy BMI as a precision marker for intervention success.

The second study20 used a Web/Smart phone lifestyle coaching program. Pre-intervention excessive GWG was evaluated as a potential precision marker. There was no difference between study arms with respect to either excess GWG or absolute GWG by the end of pregnancy indicating that early GWG is not a useful precision marker with respect to this intervention.

#### Precision predictors of need for pharmacological interventions to achieve glucose targets in GDM

Of the 34 studies of predictors of need for medical therapy in addition to standard care with diet and lifestyle advice to achieve glucose targets, 23 studies (n=19,112 participants) were included in the meta-analysis21-23,25,26,31-36,38,40,41,43-46,48,50-53 and 11 studies (n=7158 participants) in the narrative synthesis24,27-30,37,39,42,47,49,54.

Table 2 and Supplementary Figures 1.1-1.13 show that precision markers for GDM to be adequately managed with lifestyle measures without need for additional pharmacological therapy were lower maternal age, nulliparity, lower BMI, no previous history of GDM, lower HbA1c, fasting, 1 hour, 2 and 3 hour glucose, no family history of diabetes, later gestation of diagnosis of GDM and no macrosomia in previous pregnancies. There was a similar pattern for not smoking but this did not reach statistical significance.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/T3)

Table 2. 
Lifestyle adequate to achieve target glucose levels vs not adequate

Twelve studies (n=1669 participants) of predictors of need for supplemental insulin to achieve normoglycaemia following treatment with oral agents were included in the meta-analysis55-66.

Table 3 and Supplementary Figures 2.1-2.12 show that precision markers for achieving normoglycaemia with oral agents only were nulliparity, lower BMI, no previous history of GDM, lower HbA1c, fasting, 1 hour, and 2 hour glucose, later gestation of diagnosis of GDM and later gestation at initiation of the oral agent. In sensitivity analyses, there were no differences in the precision markers predicting response to metformin versus glyburide.

View this table:
[Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.15.23288459/T4)

Table 3. 
Oral pharmacological agent adequate to achieve target glucose levels vs not adequate

Similar findings were observed in the 11 studies (n=7158 participants) that were not included in the meta-analysis24,27-30,37,39,42,47,49,54 (Supplementary Table 1). Additional precision markers including fetal sex28, ethnicity30,47, and season of birth37 were evaluated but there was insufficient data to draw conclusions.

There was a paucity of data in examining other precision markers with only weak evidence that the maternal lipidome68 or genetics67 hold potential as precision markers of need for pharmacological treatment (Supplementary Table 1).

## DISCUSSION

As the factors contributing to development of GDM are heterogeneous5-8, it is plausible that the most effective treatment strategies may also be variable. A precision medicine approach resulting in more rapid normalization of hyperglycaemia could have substantial benefits for both mother and fetus. By synthesizing the evidence from two systematic reviews, we sought to identify key precision markers that may predict effective lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. There were a paucity of studies examining precision lifestyle-based interventions for GDM highlighting the pressing need for further research in this area. However, we found a number of precision markers to enable earlier identification of those requiring escalation of pharmacological therapy. These included characteristics such as BMI, that are easily and routinely measured in clinical practice, and thus have potential to be integrated into prediction models with the aim of achieving rapid glycaemic control. With the relatively short timeframe available to treat GDM, commencing effective therapy earlier, and thus reducing excess fetal growth, is an important target to improve outcomes. Basing treatment decisions closely on precision markers could also avoid over-medicalisation of women who are likely to achieve glucose targets with dietary counselling alone.

In our first systematic review we identified only two studies addressing precision markers in lifestyle-based interventions for GDM, over and above standard care19,20. In both studies, precision markers were examined as secondary analyses of the trials and only two precision markers (BMI and GWG) were assessed; it is thus not possible to conclusively identify any precision marker in lifestyle-based interventions for GDM. This gap in the literature highlights the need for more research, as also echoed by patients and healthcare professionals participating in the 2020 James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP)69.

Our second systematic review extends the observations of a previous systematic review reporting maternal characteristics associated with the need for insulin treatment in GDM11. We identified a number of additional precision markers of successful GDM treatment with lifestyle measures alone, without need for additional pharmacological therapy. The same set of predictors identified women requiring additional insulin after treatment with glyburide as with metformin, despite their different mechanisms of action. However the numbers of women included in most studies were relatively low and most studies with data in relation to glyburide failure were over 10 years old55,56,58-60. We acknowledge that there are also differences in diagnostic criteria, clinical practices, and preferences for choice of which drug to start as first pharmacological agent in various global regions which may limit the generalizability of our findings.

Notably, many of the identified precision markers are routinely measured in clinical practice and so could be incorporated into prediction models of need for pharmacological treatment70,71. By identifying those who require escalation of pharmacological therapy earlier, better allocation of resources can be achieved. Additionally, some of the precision markers identified, such as BMI, are potentially modifiable. This raises the question of how women can be helped to better prepare for pregnancy72. Implementing interventions prior to pregnancy could help understand if these precision markers are on the causal pathway, thus providing an opportunity for prevention and improving health outcomes.

Importantly, there was a lack of data on other potential precision treatment biomarkers, with only two eligible low quality studies reporting maternal genetic and metabolomic findings67,68. In the non-pregnancy literature, efficacy of dietary interventions has been reported to differ for patients with distinct metabolic profiles, for example high fasting glucose vs high fasting insulin, or insulin resistance vs low insulin secretion73-75. More recent evidence from appropriately designed, prospective dietary intervention studies has confirmed that dietary interventions tailored towards specific metabolic profiles have more beneficial effects than interventions not specifically designed towards a patient’s metabolic profile76-79. Ongoing studies such as the Westlake Precision Birth Cohort (WeBirth) in China ([NCT04060056](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04060056&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom)) and the USA Hoosier Moms Cohort ([NCT03696368](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT03696368&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom)) are collecting additional biomarkers which will enhance knowledge in this field. However implementing such measures in clinical practice, if they prove informative, could be complex and expensive and thus not suitable for use in all global contexts.

Our study has several limitations: Our reviews primarily relied on secondary analyses from observational studies that were not specifically designed to address the question of precision medicine in GDM treatment and were not powered for many of the comparisons made. Prior to introduction in clinical practice, any marker would have to be rigorously and prospectively tested with respect to sensitivity and specificity to predict treatment needs. The majority of data were extracted from clinical records leading to a lack of detail, such as the precise timing of BMI measurements, and limited information about whether BMI was self-reported or clinician measured. There was marked variation in approaches to GDM screening methods, choice of glucose challenge test and diagnostic thresholds. Whilst we included studies from a range of geographical settings, the majority of studies were from high income settings, and therefore our findings may not be applicable to low- and middle-income countries. Pregnancy outcomes of precision medicine strategies for GDM also remain unknown, underscoring the need for tailored interventions that account for patient perspective and diverse patient populations.

Despite these limitations, our study has several strengths. We used robust methods to identify a broad range of precision markers, many of which are routinely measured and can be easily translated into prediction models. We excluded studies where the choice of drug was decided by the clinician based on participant characteristics to avoid bias. Our study also highlights the need for further research in this area, particularly in exploring whether there are more sensitive markers that could be identified through “omics” approaches.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that precision medicine for GDM treatment holds promise as a tool to stream-line individuals towards the most effective and potentially cost-effective care. Whether this will impact on short-term pregnancy outcomes and longer term health outcomes for both mother and baby is not known. More research is urgently needed to identify precision lifestyle interventions and to explore whether more sensitive markers could be identified. Prospective studies, appropriately powered and designed to allow assessment of discriminative abilities (sensitivity, specificity), and (external) validation studies are urgently needed to understand the utility and generalizability of our findings to under-represented populations. Consideration of how identified markers can be implemented feasibly and cost effectively in clinical practice is also required. Such efforts will be critical for realising the full potential of precision medicine and empowering patients and their health care providers to optimise short and long-term health outcomes for both mother and child.

## Author contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the research questions, study selection, extraction of data, data analyses, quality assessment and data interpretation. RMR wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors edited the manuscript and all approved the final version.

## Conflicts of Interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

## Funding

The ADA/EASD Precision Diabetes Medicine Initiative, within which this work was conducted, has received the following support: The Covidence license was funded by Lund University (Sweden) for which technical support was provided by Maria Björklund and Krister Aronsson (Faculty of Medicine Library, Lund University, Sweden). Administrative support was provided by Lund University (Malmö, Sweden), University of Chicago (IL, USA), and the American Diabetes Association (Washington D.C., USA). The Novo Nordisk Foundation (Hellerup, Denmark) provided grant support for in-person writing group meetings (PI: L Phillipson, University of Chicago, IL). JMM acknowledges the support of the Henry Friesen Professorship in Endocrinology, University of Manitoba, Canada. NMM and RMR acknowledge the support of the British Heart Foundation (RE/18/5/34216). SEO is supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00014/4) and British Heart Foundation (RG/17/12/33167).

## Supporting information

Supplementary material [[supplements/288459_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

*   Received April 15, 2023.
*   Revision received April 15, 2023.
*   Accepted April 17, 2023.


*   © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission.

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Saravanan, P. Gestational diabetes: opportunities for improving maternal and child health. The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology 8, 793–800 (2020).
    
    

2.  2.Vounzoulaki, E., et al. Progression to type 2 diabetes in women with a known history of gestational diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 369, m1361 (2020).
    
    

3.  3.Metzger, B.E., et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine 358, 1991–2002 (2008).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa0707943&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18463375&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000255577700003&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Crowther, C.A., et al. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. The New England Journal of Medicine 352, 2477–2486 (2005).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa042973&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15951574&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229798900003&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Powe, C.E., Hivert, M.F. & Udler, M.S. Defining Heterogeneity Among Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes 69, 2064–2074 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2337/db20-2064-P&link_type=DOI) 

6.  6.Powe, C.E., et al. Heterogeneous Contribution of Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion Defects to Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 39, 1052–1055 (2016).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIzOS82LzEwNTIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8xNy8yMDIzLjA0LjE1LjIzMjg4NDU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

7.  7.Benhalima, K., et al. Characteristics and pregnancy outcomes across gestational diabetes mellitus subtypes based on insulin resistance. Diabetologia 62, 2118–2128 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00125-019-4961-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

8.  8.Madsen, L.R., et al. Do variations in insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion in pregnancy predict differences in obstetric and neonatal outcomes? Diabetologia 64, 304–312 (2021).
    
    

9.  9.Harrison, R.K., Cruz, M., Wong, A., Davitt, C. & Palatnik, A. The timing of initiation of pharmacotherapy for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 20, 773 (2020).
    
    

10. 10.Tisi, D.K., Burns, D.H., Luskey, G.W. & Koski, K.G. Fetal exposure to altered amniotic fluid glucose, insulin, and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1 occurs before screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 34, 139–144 (2011).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIzNC8xLzEzOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzE3LzIwMjMuMDQuMTUuMjMyODg0NTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

11. 11.Alvarez-Silvares, E., Bermúdez-González, M., Vilouta-Romero, M., García-Lavandeira, S. & Seoane-Pillado, T. Prediction of insulin therapy in women with gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 50, 608–619 (2022).
    
    

12. 12.Dennis, J.M., Shields, B.M., Henley, W.E., Jones, A.G. & Hattersley, A.T. Disease progression and treatment response in data-driven subgroups of type 2 diabetes compared with models based on simple clinical features: an analysis using clinical trial data. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 7, 442–451 (2019).
    
    

13. 13.Dawed, A.Y., et al. Pharmacogenomics of GLP-1 receptor agonists: a genome-wide analysis of observational data and large randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. Diabetes & Endocrinology 11, 33–41 (2023).
    
    

14. 14.Nolan, J.J., et al. ADA/EASD Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative: An International Perspective and Future Vision for Precision Medicine in Diabetes. Diabetes Care 45, 261–266 (2022).
    
    

15. 15.Franks, P.W. The Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative: 2nd International Consensus Report on Gaps & Opportunities for the Clinical Translation of Precision Diabetes Medicine. Nature Medicine (2023).
    
    

16. 16.Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151, 264–269, W264 (2009).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19622511&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000269038900006&link_type=ISI) 

17. 17.Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools [https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools](https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools). Accessed 15th April 2023
    
    

18. 18.Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) [https://guidelines.diabetes.ca/cpg/chapter2](https://guidelines.diabetes.ca/cpg/chapter2). Accessed 15th April 2023
    
    

19. 19.Hedderson, M.M., et al. A Tailored Letter Based on Electronic Health Record Data Improves Gestational Weight Gain Among Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: The Gestational Diabetes’ Effects on Moms (GEM) Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care 41, 1370–1377 (2018).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiI0MS83LzEzNzAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8xNy8yMDIzLjA0LjE1LjIzMjg4NDU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

20. 20.Yew, T.W., et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Effects of a Smartphone Application-Based Lifestyle Coaching Program on Gestational Weight Gain, Glycemic Control, and Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: The SMART-GDM Study. Diabetes Care 44, 456–463 (2021).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI0NC8yLzQ1NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzA0LzE3LzIwMjMuMDQuMTUuMjMyODg0NTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

21. 21.Ares, J., et al. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM): Relationship Between Higher Cutoff Values for 100g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) and Insulin Requirement During Pregnancy. Maternal and Child Health Journal 21, 1488–1492 (2017).
    
    

22. 22.Barnes, R.A., et al. Predictors of large and small for gestational age birthweight in offspring of women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine 30, 1040–1046 (2013).
    
    

23. 23.Benhalima, K., et al. Differences in pregnancy outcomes and characteristics between insulin- and diet-treated women with gestational diabetes. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 15, 271 (2015).
    
    

24. 24.Berg, M., Adlerberth, A., Sultan, B., Wennergren, M. & Wallin, G. Early random capillary glucose level screening and multidisciplinary antenatal teamwork to improve outcome in gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 86, 283–290 (2007).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17364301&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

25. 25.Ducarme, G., et al. Predictive factors of subsequent insulin requirement for glycemic control during pregnancy at diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 144, 265–270 (2019).
    
    

26. 26.Durnwald, C.P., et al. Glycemic characteristics and neonatal outcomes of women treated for mild gestational diabetes. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117, 819–827 (2011).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820fc6cf&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21422852&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

27. 27.Elnour AA, M.J. Antenatal oral glucose-tolerance test values and pregnancy outcomes. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice 16(3), 189–197 (2008).
    
    

28. 28.Giannubilo, S.R., Pasculli, A., Ballatori, C., Biagini, A. & Ciavattini, A. Fetal Sex, Need for Insulin, and Perinatal Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: An Observational Cohort Study. Clinical Therapeutics 40, 587–592 (2018).
    
    

29. 29.Gibson, K.S., Waters, T.P. & Catalano, P.M. Maternal weight gain in women who develop gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstetrics and Gynecology 119, 560–565 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824758e0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22353954&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000300637400011&link_type=ISI) 

30. 30.Hillier, T.A., Ogasawara, K.K., Pedula, K.L. & Vesco, K.K. Markedly different rates of incident insulin treatment based on universal gestational diabetes mellitus screening in a diverse HMO population. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 209, 440.e441–449 (2013).
    
    

31. 31.Ikenoue, S., et al. Clinical impact of women with gestational diabetes mellitus by the new consensus criteria: two year experience in a single institution in Japan. Endocrine Journal 61, 353–358 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1507/endocrj.EJ13-0496&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

32. 32.Ito, Y., et al. Indicators of the need for insulin treatment and the effect of treatment for gestational diabetes on pregnancy outcomes in Japan. Endocrine Jjournal 63, 231–237 (2016).
    
    

33. 33.Kalok, A., et al. Correlation between Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Abnormalities and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(2020).
    
    

34. 34.Koning, S.H., et al. Risk stratification for healthcare planning in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 74, 262–269 (2016).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

35. 35.Mecacci, F., et al. Different Gestational Diabetes Phenotypes: Which Insulin Regimen Fits Better? Frontiers in Endocrinology 12, 630903 (2021).
    
    

36. 36.Meghelli, L., Vambergue, A., Drumez, E. & Deruelle, P. Complications of pregnancy in morbidly obese patients: What is the impact of gestational diabetes mellitus? Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction 49, 101628 (2020).
    
    

37. 37.Molina-Vega, M., et al. Relationship between environmental temperature and the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus: An observational retrospective study. The Science of the Total Environment 744, 140994 (2020).
    
    

38. 38.Ng, A., Liu, A. & Nanan, R. Association between insulin and post-caesarean resuscitation rates in infants of women with GDM: A retrospective study. Journal of Diabetes 12, 151–157 (2020).
    
    

39. 39.Nguyen, T.H., Yang, J.W., Mahone, M. & Godbout, A. Are There Benefits for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Treating Lower Levels of Hyperglycemia Than Standard Recommendations? Canadian Journal of Diabetes 40, 548–554 (2016).
    
    

40. 40.Nishikawa, T., et al. One-hour oral glucose tolerance test plasma glucose at gestational diabetes diagnosis is a common predictor of the need for insulin therapy in pregnancy and postpartum impaired glucose tolerance. Journal of Diabetes Investigation 9, 1370–1377 (2018).
    
    

41. 41.Ouzounian, J.G., et al. One-hour post-glucola results and pre-pregnancy body mass index are associated with the need for insulin therapy in women with gestational diabetes. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 24, 718–722 (2011).
    
    

42. 42.Parrettini, S., et al. Gestational diabetes: A link between OGTT, maternal-fetal outcomes and maternal glucose tolerance after childbirth. Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases 30, 2389–2397 (2020).
    
    

43. 43.Silva, J.K., Kaholokula, J.K., Ratner, R. & Mau, M. Ethnic differences in perinatal outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 29, 2058–2063 (2006).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiZGlhY2FyZSI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIyOS85LzIwNTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8xNy8yMDIzLjA0LjE1LjIzMjg4NDU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

44. 44.Souza, A., et al. Can we stratify the risk for insulin need in women diagnosed early with gestational diabetes by fasting blood glucose? The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 32, 2036–2041 (2019).
    
    

45. 45.Suhonen, L., Hiilesmaa, V., Kaaja, R. & Teramo, K. Detection of pregnancies with high risk of fetal macrosomia among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 87, 940–945 (2008).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/00016340802334377&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18728914&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000259086100010&link_type=ISI) 

46. 46.Sun, T., et al. The effects of insulin therapy on maternal blood pressure and weight in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 21, 657 (2021).
    
    

47. 47.Wong, V.W. Gestational diabetes mellitus in five ethnic groups: a comparison of their clinical characteristics. Diabetic Medicine 29, 366–371 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03439.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21913963&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 

48. 48.Wong, V.W. & Jalaludin, B. Gestational diabetes mellitus: who requires insulin therapy? The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 51, 432–436 (2011).
    
    

49. 49.Zawiejska, A., Wender-Ozegowska, E., Radzicka, S. & Brazert, J. Maternal hyperglycemia according to IADPSG criteria as a predictor of perinatal complications in women with gestational diabetes: a retrospective observational study. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 27, 1526–1530 (2014).
    
    

50. 50.Bashir, M., et al. Metformin-treated-GDM has lower risk of macrosomia compared to diet-treated GDM-a retrospective cohort study. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 33, 2366–2371 (2020).
    
    

51. 51.Gilbert, L., et al. Mental health and its associations with glucose-lowering medication in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. A prospective clinical cohort study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 124, 105095 (2021).
    
    

52. 52.Krispin, E., Ashkenazi Katz, A., Shmuel, E., Toledano, Y. & Hadar, E. Characterization of women with gestational diabetes who failed to achieve glycemic control by lifestyle modifications. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 303, 677–683 (2021).
    
    

53. 53.Meshel, S., et al. Can we predict the need for pharmacological treatment according to demographic and clinical characteristics in gestational diabetes? The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 29, 2062–2066 (2016).
    
    

54. 54.Zhu, S., Meehan, T., Veerasingham, M. & Sivanesan, K. COVID-19 pandemic gestational diabetes screening guidelines: A retrospective study in Australian women. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 15, 391–395 (2021).
    
    

55. 55.Chmait, R., Dinise, T. & Moore, T. Prospective observational study to establish predictors of glyburide success in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Journal of Perinatology 24, 617–622 (2004).
    
    

56. 56.Conway, D.L., Gonzales, O. & Skiver, D. Use of glyburide for the treatment of gestational diabetes: the San Antonio experience. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 15, 51–55 (2004).
    
    

57. 57.Harper, L.M., Glover, A.V., Biggio, J.R. & Tita, A. Predicting failure of glyburide therapy in gestational diabetes. Journal of Perinatology 36, 347–351 (2016).
    
    

58. 58.Kahn, B.F., Davies, J.K., Lynch, A.M., Reynolds, R.M. & Barbour, L.A. Predictors of glyburide failure in the treatment of gestational diabetes. Obstetrics and Gynecology 107, 1303–1309 (2006).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.AOG.0000218704.28313.36&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16738156&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000241296800014&link_type=ISI) 

59. 59.Rochon, M., Rand, L., Roth, L. & Gaddipati, S. Glyburide for the management of gestational diabetes: risk factors predictive of failure and associated pregnancy outcomes. AmericanJournal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195, 1090–1094 (2006).
    
    

60. 60.Yogev, Y., et al. Glyburide in gestational diabetes--prediction of treatment failure. The Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 24, 842–846 (2011).
    
    

61. 61.Gante, I., Melo, L., Dores, J., Ruas, L. & Almeida, M.D.C. Metformin in gestational diabetes mellitus: predictors of poor response. EuropeanJournal of Endocrinology 178, 129–135 (2018).
    
    

62. 62.Khin, M.O., Gates, S. & Saravanan, P. Predictors of metformin failure in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome 12, 405–410 (2018).
    
    

63. 63.McGrath, R.T., Glastras, S.J., Hocking, S. & Fulcher, G.R. Use of metformin earlier in pregnancy predicts supplemental insulin therapy in women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 116, 96–99 (2016).
    
    

64. 64.Picón-César, M.J., et al. Metformin for gestational diabetes study: metformin vs insulin in gestational diabetes: glycemic control and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes: randomized prospective trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 225, 517.e511–517.e517 (2021).
    
    

65. 65.Rowan, J.A., Hague, W.M., Gao, W., Battin, M.R. & Moore, M.P. Metformin versus insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine 358, 2003–2015 (2008).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa0707193&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18463376&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F04%2F17%2F2023.04.15.23288459.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000255577700004&link_type=ISI) 

66. 66.Tertti, K., Ekblad, U., Koskinen, P., Vahlberg, T. & Rönnemaa, T. Metformin vs. insulin in gestational diabetes. A randomized study characterizing metformin patients needing additional insulin. Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism 15, 246–251 (2013).
    
    

67. 67.Bouchghoul, H., et al. Hypoglycemia and Glycemic Control With Glyburide in Women With Gestational Diabetes and Genetic Variants of Cytochrome P450 2C9 and/or OATP1B3. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 110, 141–148 (2021).
    
    

68. 68.Huhtala, M.S., Tertti, K. & Rönnemaa, T. Serum lipids and their association with birth weight in metformin and insulin treated patients with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 170, 108456 (2020).
    
    

69. 69.Ayman, G., et al. The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals. Diabetic Medicine 38, e14588 (2021).
    
    

70. 70.Cooray, S.D., et al. Development, validation and clinical utility of a risk prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes: The PeRSonal GDM model. EClinicalMedicine 52, 101637 (2022).
    
    

71. 71.Liao, L.D., et al. Development and validation of prediction models for gestational diabetes treatment modality using supervised machine learning: a population-based cohort study. BMC Medicine 20, 307 (2022).
    
    

72. 72.Cassinelli, E.H., et al. Preconception health and care policies and guidelines in the UK and Ireland: a scoping review. Lancet 400 Suppl 1, S61 (2022).
    
    

73. 73.Hjorth, M.F., et al. Pretreatment Fasting Glucose and Insulin as Determinants of Weight Loss on Diets Varying in Macronutrients and Dietary Fibers-The POUNDS LOST Study. Nutrients 11(2019).
    
    

74. 74.Hjorth, M.F., et al. Pretreatment fasting plasma glucose and insulin modify dietary weight loss success: results from 3 randomized clinical trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 106, 499–505 (2017).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiYWpjbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo5OiIxMDYvMi80OTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMy8wNC8xNy8yMDIzLjA0LjE1LjIzMjg4NDU5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

75. 75.Hjorth, M.F., Due, A., Larsen, T.M. & Astrup, A. Pretreatment Fasting Plasma Glucose Modifies Dietary Weight Loss Maintenance Success: Results from a Stratified RCT. Obesity 25, 2045–2048 (2017).
    
    

76. 76.Bergia, R.E., et al. Differential Glycemic Effects of Low-versus High-Glycemic Index Mediterranean-Style Eating Patterns in Adults at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes: The MEDGI-Carb Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 14(2022).
    
    

77. 77.Aldubayan, M.A., et al. A double-blinded, randomized, parallel intervention to evaluate biomarker-based nutrition plans for weight loss: The PREVENTOMICS study. Clinical Nutrition 41, 1834–1844 (2022).
    
    

78. 78.Trouwborst, I., et al. Cardiometabolic health improvements upon dietary intervention are driven by tissue-specific insulin resistance phenotype: A precision nutrition trial. Cell Metabolism 35, 71–83.e75 (2023).
    
    

79. 79.Cifuentes, L., et al. Phenotype tailored lifestyle intervention on weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with obesity: a single-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-concept study. EClinicalMedicine 58, 101923 (2023).